journal," radio and tv talk show host armstrong williams. chang discusses the gender pay gap and we will talk to the executive director of the national sustainable agricultural commission susan prolman about the affect of sustainable farming on the environment. this is "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: good morning, and welcome to "washington journal." with just a couple more days left in the year it is a time of reflection on the year past and also the decade that is passing by. "the philadelphia inquirer has -- "the philadelphia inquirer" has a story about the internet.

our question is, how has the internet change your life in the past decade? you can also e-mail us -- and we are on twitter -- how it has changed your life in the past decade or how it has not. looking at the peace in "the philadelphia inquirer."

now those on-line who used to be consumers on the internet now our producers. so everyone has a chance to have their say. our question to you is, how has

the internet changed your life? 10 years ago, they report that the web was -- email was cool. 10 years ago, it march 2000, less than 5% surveyed had broadband service. let's hear from bill, democratic line. how has the internet changed your life? caller: it made me real aware who the real criminals are on the planet. i never would have known who pulled off 9/11 without the

internet, because i definitely would not have gotten it from the mainstream media. for that, i am glad for the internet. host: and so, you a lot of your own research. caller: i do all of my own research because the mainstream media is just wave -- lame, entertainment. host: do you produce your own content? caller: no, i just do a lot of reading and comparing notes. host: let's hear from michael from long island. independent caller. caller: i would like to bring out that google is going to go to 3 billion people that don't have the internet, using satellite. i think that will bring almost instantaneously internet to the other half of the planet. i wanted to bring out one thing that donald trump brought out.

he was talking about one of the numbers that obama may be incorrect on. he said that inflation, excluding oil and food, it takes inflation from 10% down to 3%. really, obama should really give out a number of inflation with oil and with food. you have a great program. thank you very much. host: let's go to a comment from twitter. people using it increasingly to pay bills and check accounts. let's hear from kathy, republican, a corpus christi. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. i enjoy watching it. i learned a lot. the internet has changed my life because i don't have any other

trade. and if i go to college i will have to learn to use the computer, and i don't even know how to use the computer. my boyfriend showed me how to get on texas poker hold on but i forgot how to do it. if i am supposed to get a job -- i do not know how the clerks pressed the button to add new do all the cards which income and you go get guess you have to pay -- press buttons. it is too complicated for some people like me. i would have to go to school every learned and who will pay for my schooling? host: thank you for sharing my perspective. i question is how has the into that changed your life. perhaps in the internet has not changed your life or perhaps he found it difficult technologically, if you feel like you've got left behind.

host: robert from cleveland, ohio. republican. caller: my comments about the internet is i think you have a bad thing. you have a lot of children -- they are calling up, putting things on the internet and not knowing what they are doing. people getting information. i had an argument with my brother over my knees because he put something on the internet. it is bad for kids. they need to monitor it a little bit more. and a lot of hunt -- husbands and wives are breaking up because of the internet. host: let us look back at the "philadelphia inquirer or" piece.

looking back at september 11, " the philadelphia inquirer" reports that the world was made a village. let's go to michigan. ken, democratic caller. caller: first of all, i went to college later in life and i did not think i could have completed that very challenging degree if it was not for the internet. secondly, i write a locked and i get a lot of my opinions published in the local media -- oakland county, wayne county, detroit area. one of my pet peeves is back kid rock withing the confederate

flag in concert. host: looking at social media and how it has shaped the internet and out into that shaped social networking. today myspace has 57 million users, twitter, more than 190 million, and facebook, more than 500 million and more than half of all u.s. trap -- traffic. the c0-creator for facebook was named "time" person of the year for 2010. caller: this is a great conversation. i am a communication major and that also teach. one of the things i noticed is

there is so much content out there, it can be good and bad. yes, there is ready access to data but people that critically think about it. you can look at the political discourse we have in the country and we realize people did not critically think -- because there is so much data, some of stated that you could pick and choose from to foment your ideas that you did not have to think through. people have lost their ability to write. i deal with adults who can't construct a coherent paragraphs, and it is scary because they spend more time on facebook or just researching and they do not howl -- do not know how to create their content. as far as the internet changed me, i maintain a blog. it has taken awhile to generate a following but i gravitate to it. it has forced me to think critically and write more. i would tell everybody to just write more. don't just read what somebody said about a 9/11 conspiracy theory and fall in love with it.

make your own content and think critically. host: jeff, republican, nebraska. good morning. caller: several comments i would like to make. i agree with the previous caller very much so. i think the internet is ok in some respects because there is a lot of information out there, but it is the same information we had in books all along and people forget the internet was designed for the military. any suite of technology we have, the military had it first and bigger and better than anything in the civilian sector. the last, and -- people think when they send something to cyberspace, it is gone. no, anything that has ever been accessed on your computer or sent and received is admissible as evidence in courts. that is kind of scary because it can be used to incriminate in the said faults. i would like to refer people to youtube, when youtube lost a

lawsuit with viacom and they have to hand over all their records. they lost the copyright infringement lawsuit. youtube hands over the user id and passwords and contents. host: "the philadelphia inquirer" reports, from zero users in 2000, now more than 57% of adults are mobley connected by smartphones and other devices to the internet. looking at our home internet connections have changed a decade ago. a decade ago, 5%, now, at 66%. social media like facebook and twitter are mobile, rather than deskbound. mobile phones doing anything you

could do on a desktop. let's go to maryland, troy, democratic line. caller: ago? host: go right ahead. caller: the internet has not really changed my life, but i am afraid for our future because i am 46 years old. i grew up playing ball, interacting with kids. that is all lost now. we don't have it. everyone is on the computer, they get home from school, they are on the computer.

you see people on the bus, attached to the iphone and ipad. not interacting with people and not speaking to anyone. i am afraid for the future, we lost that contact with each other and i am afraid for that. host: do you see the internet as a way to connect with people in sort of a cyber sense? not tossing a football but a cross-cultural connection. you could be a contact with somebody from california. does that have an advantage? caller: personally, i don't think so. the person that i need might be from california that i did not interact with because i am attached to my ipad. if you can't speak to someone face to face -- i love the personal touch. maybe i am old fashioned. or, i don't know.

but i love that. i love the personal touch. host: talking about the iphone. that came out in 2007. a decade ago there were no iphone apps. winston-salem, north carolina. jamie joins us on the independent line. caller: did not know where to begin. the internet has been actually my primary communication device with people all over the world. my multi media outlet. i can catch c-span if i miss it in the morning. i can just come in and pull up a

website. what you guys any time in the night. also a big educational tool. books online, to educate yourself about any subject you would like. i have been unemployed for long time. i am a construction worker. it is helping me reinvent -- reinvent myself. can i mention my website? host: in the context that we are talking about. caller: radiojunkie.com -- in marketing. it's good to see any negatives? caller: as one of the callers put it out, under private security. once you put out there. don't tell everything -- like you are leaving your home, people like to put that on facebook and detail every aspect of your life. it can be intrusive but you are in charge of whatever information you put out there, so you should be where.

host: "the philadelphia inquirer" asks, master or slave? does not the same subject as control.

let's hear from debra on the democrats' line in the cincinnati. caller: i cannot believe out into that has changed my life. it took me from this little housewife in the cincinnati, ohio, in a little corner of cincinnati, and it opened up the whole world. it started out with the hair reporter -- harry potter books, which wound up in london with a conference and that people i would not have met otherwise. connected with friends and family who i lost touch with over facebook. my daughter lost her cellphone on campus, i posted it on facebook and she found her phone. it really keeps you connected. i cannot imagine my life without it.

i do not like all of the electronic dandruff i am leaving behind. but that information should not be used against people. host: have you changed your habits at all knowing that some of the data believe online could be mined? do you clear out the cookies in your internet search is, change your search habits? caller: i probably would do that -- if i do happen to do a search at work or even at home, i use fire fox. i do keep my cache clear. one thing i talk to my daughter about, please, be careful, about what you put on facebook. just to be very, very careful about what you say about yourself especially since she is in college. not to ruin her life over one picture or phrase. just be very careful. i have my own blog rules about

what i say and what i say about other people. you never know who you may hurt. host: mackey writes on twitter -- matthew writes on twitter -- let us look at a piece in "usa today." buyers snapped up tablet computers.

you can see some of the stats on this. both books, desktops, netbooks and tablets, the new force. ohio, jeff is on our republican line. good morning. caller: i just think that the internet is good for looking up things for medical reasons. checking whether the doctors are telling you things or not. on the other hand, i think as far as it being negative, i think they ought to do something about the porn on it because it is too easy for minors looking at stuff. and people in prison because they cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

brandon on our independent line. welcome. how has the internet changed your life? caller: because i, unlike some other viewers, have excellent road map in the 1990's when the internet first came out. -- have actually grown up in the 1990's. changes from dial-up, dsl, cable, to now. listening to the callers, and it is interesting about what is talk about security. for me, it is amazing how many people don't realize how important the internet and computers are really. if you look at work and things of that nature, people need to use the internet to apply for jobs, to look up information and find past contacts. in terms of security, people are just not sure what to do. host: as a young person are you worried about security? have you changed your viewing

habits knowing that data could be used later? caller: personally since i did grow up during the internet time, i am quite knowledge on the aspects of security and what not. it is good for me to pass on my knowledge to other people. i am still worried people will mine my information, but i have enough knowledge to prevent most of it and i encourage some of my other viewers to research other ways to prevent information from being stolen. clearing cache, history, using different applications to make sure worms and viruses do not get on their computers. host: looking at "usa today," another piece.

let's go to albany, new york. mary on our democrats' line. caller: good morning. i would like to just say that i am not in favor of all of this technology that we have now. i cannot understand how the

internet has helped people who are in business -- i can understand how the internet has helped people who are in business, but as far as personal use i think it has gone over the top. everyone in the family is hooked up to some sort -- if it is not ipod, iphone, they are on the internet. they have no time for telephoning, no time for stopping by and visiting. it has just become a very cold world, i fight. i and not in favor of all of this technology. the other point is i think it is over the top with the expense of all of the plastic stuff. where is it going to end up? host: let us look at another " usa today" piece.

at is what is happening in another part of the world related to the internet. not as much freedom of access to the internet as we have in the united states. my question is, how has the internet changed your life. we heard from the folks on twitter -- which just developed over the past decade, as well as phone calls. dan writes what twitter -- in a new haven, connecticut, kandel joins us on -- kendell joins us on the independent line. caller: i it was also brought up on the internet. my e-mail is like 18 years old. when i first got on the internet, i was in college.

to me, it never felt secure. right now on facebook, i did not have an actual picture. i just have a graphic. i will never put a picture of. it lowered operating capacity from my generation down -- people who do not know how to look of the word in the dictionary. why cannot read a map. people say it has helped the education system -- i do not think it has. i also feel that it completely low was everybody's ability, remembering their times tables and simple things like arithmetic because everybody has a gizmo that does everything for them and they did not know how to spell or have social interaction face-to-face. it really bothers me. i feel that i am lost in this world because i don't want to keep up. like someone else is saying, all this stuff, technology -- trying to keep up.

producing some and products making so much waste because the durability is not even that strong. products in the years ago -- it really bothers me. it has not affected my life so much. i really do not like to see the public the way it is now. facebook on the bus, or texting while they are driving. it does not help me much. host: let's hear from bill, democratic camera out of seattle, washington. caller: a lot of what i heard is true. in a way, the internet makes us a global village. in another 10 years, how many people will be on the internet? but the downside is of the misinformation we have. you have a website that looks official, you can say 9/11 was caused by the ancient aztecs and you have somebody that will believe you. i am in my early 50's so it is

hard for me to catch up with technology -- i am not even sure what twitter is yet without having to ask my son. but if some reason we were to use all of our -- our satellites and everything would go down, would people remember how to dial a phone and what they have a phone to dial. it makes as a global village but also isolates us at the same time. host: if you are twitter-savvy, you can send us a tweet and you can also e-mail us. we have a comment -- host: tennessee, john, republicans line. how has the into that changed your life? caller: i got rid of my satellite a couple of years ago,

hooked my computer to my big screen tv and i watch it -- movies, whatever. host: any other ways? caller: i keep well informed on what is happening right now. the news this morning was put out misinformation and so on. host: hunts though, alabama, rory on the democrats' line. how has the internet changed your life? caller: actually, it started

about 20 years ago when i got an account on aol, and at that point it did not have graphics. it was just text. now, where i just got a master's degree completely online, university of phoenix online -- and also i do my banking and i have my own blog. the internet has been transformational in my own life. and it continues to be. i think it is every bit as important as the wheel, for instance. host: sasha writes on twitter -- about the obama family on vacation in hawaii.

a story in the news looking both at the technology that the president is employing and the team is implying, but also concerns about terrorism threats. michael chertoff, the homeland security secretary for president george do you bush is quoted in this piece as saying, i think what you see is not an experienced wide -- white house that understands there is no vacation from the world in which we live. new orleans, charles joins us on the republican line. caller: very good. i am glad you opened this with

the impression of chinese communism. i wanted to talk about what is happening over in russia. i read an article on the internet, and it says they have satellites that can look into any home or any mind -- apparently your mind emanates electronic signals. this was in a big russian paper, pravda. not an article but subject of cbs news over the summer saying some of this is legitimate, that the government is getting to the point where they can read our thoughts. i wanted to know your opinion. host: interested in the opinion of our callers. let us go to josh in california. caller: i graduated high school in 1988 and i needed a job and i went to the want ads and found a

job and it just said that demint career, so i showed up and it was a mortuary. 10 years later i had been looking for a job -- seeing the nature of the company. in just 10 years, from the late 1980's to the late 1990's, it completely changed job search. not only how the job seeker qualifies companies but how they qualify you. the second thing, anything i think of, i am curious about something in the 1970's and 1980's, you would have to go to funk and waggles encyclopedia, now you just type in google and choose what you want to look up. host: is that a good thing or bad thing? caller: good thing, i think. obviously there are negatives, but overall it is good. host: what are the negatives? caller: children looking up the things like bombs, porn, racist

groups that they might want to identify with at a young age. host: from "usa today," the cover story, homicide's fall in the big city -- cities. it also has a profile of elizabeth warren. she says a new consumer protection borough will level the playing field with big banks. the special adviser to the president is trying to shake things up as she puts together the nation's first federal consumer protection agency.

we will be watching that over the coming months as it starts to take shape. and looking at the congressional delegation from north dakota. looking at -- senator byron dorgan, kent conrad and representative role pomeroy -- earl pomeroy.

some images of them from the history books. with president bill clinton back in 1997 when he was signing a disaster aid bill. let's go to napa, california, where chris joins us on the democrats' line. caller: i just wanted to say that the internet is just the sheer volume of information available at your own house is like having a library in your own house, it is wonderful. the ease with which you can keep in touch with friends and family all around the world is great.

i have to confess that i have a little crush on you. host: let us go to david, republican line. caller: how are you, this morning? if you want a serial killer or somebody to find you, the internet is great for that. if you want somebody to get hooked up with your children, the internet is great for that. if you want somebody to hack into your computer -- you need this thing. computers, the best worst thing we ever invented. i say, everybody get it so everybody can lose their privacy. host: what do you do to protect yourself against those concerns? caller: this is what you do, you just don't use those crappy things. i would not have one in my house. if i need information i will go to the library and read a book. they do read books, still.

saw two guys fighting on the ipod and they were crossing each other out -- look what you said to me, and i looked at his own, and i said, why don't you get on the phone with him and talk to him with your human voice. the human voice is going to be obsolete one day. nobody is going to talk, nobody gets on the phone. you get on the phone and you get an answering machine and in the senate to number one, then two, and if you really want to talk to a human being, too bad. if we are losing the human touch. and like i said, a great tool for serial killers to get a path to your house. they just have to look up your genealogy, get your first and last name and still your id. the worst stuff and what has happened since we got the thing going. i remember when there was not an internet and i used to just have a telephone. payphone and a house on. there was not a problem. we made it to work. we did our jobs. nowadays you see people --

everybody in their world -- in the world has a cellphone and cannot live without it. i have a cell phone, all of a sudden i cannot live without the thing. but the internet is doing the same thing. turning technology against us and the personal touch is gone. host: let us get a personal% -- another perspective from paul on twitter. rockville, maryland on the democrats' line. how do you think the internet has changed your life? caller: it is almost like what the guy just said. i am from jamaica and i see people wake up in the morning and go farm and plant food and they reaped their food and sell their food -- you cannot do that with a computer. kids don't have time for that, to get up and go plant something. the thing about it, they cannot

live without. when they go to school day -- computers now built in china, which china is communist. the tried to make our kids look foolish. but there is a limit, and you have to put a -- host: even though congress is on recess there is still checking in with the delegations back home. this about maryland senator mikulski, reaching a milestone.

also in that same issue of "the philadelphia inquirer," a piece about mark sanford, governor of south carolina. things looking up as he is prepared to leave office. this comes to us, op-ed piece from "the new york times." miguel gorbachev, former president of the soviet union. he references the start treaty that was just passed by the senate before they adjourned. he says he hopes it will energize efforts to take the next up toward a world free of

nuclear weapons -- a ban on all testing. let us go back to the phones. college station, texas. the question is how the internet has changed your life. caller: the internet has changed my life for positive and negative. i have been a victim of identity theft because of the internet. for the positive part, i am able to research -- if i went to the library i would have to go deeper. what we have to do as americans is try to have self restraint and we need to have federal regulators to watch and monitor what is happening on the internet. and then think we can still survive with it. host: fort wayne, indiana, where mike is on the democrats' line. caller: how are you doing today? i am sure there are a lot of good things about the internet. i own two companies -- i

actually started the company and now to go to the internet, so now i have two. i make a lot of money on the internet. i make a lot more money on the internet than my other. but i did not sleep very good at night -- i employ 33 employees on the internet. i do not need any employee use. i can do everything myself. i have one employee, and that is more out of laziness than need. the guy unpacking the product, checking it incomer receiving it, putting it on the shelf. you don't have the guy at the counter talking to the customers. we don't have any of that. the salesgirl talking to the guys. you look at this, man, this is great, i am making great money. we don't have to do anything. but when you really sit down and think about it, there are very

little jobs that i need, so it cuts a lot of jobs out, and also hurts a lot of people who have been doing it the same way for years. i know other businesses like mine who have been in business for a long time, and it is horrible, because i can sell the product for half the price they can and make the same amount of money. you just feel bad because with the world going the way we are now, people cannot realize when they hit that button, how that affects -- from the person on the other side benefiting from it, you still feel bad because people cannot pay taxes when they buy out of state. when you buy out of state, you did not pay taxes so that takes revenue from your state and gives it to another state. i just think the internet is great, but it would not hurt to have just a little bit -- there has to be some regulation. host: this is an op-ed piece from "the philadelphia inquirer"

called big brother targets the internet. a talking about some proposals from the fcc to regulate it more. vague objective with the deceptive name of net neutrality. one last. about the internet. fcc probing private trade on facebook and other firms. -- sec probing private trade on facebook and other firms. according to people familiar with the matter.

that is "the wall street journal" story looking at the finances of the internet and some of the popular web sites americans use. thank you for all of your calls. we will be back in a moment talking to armstrong williams about the republican party in the year to come. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> activist phyllis bennis on " in that." former journalist for the united nations, she is the author of eight books, including calling the shots, before and after, and her latest "ending the u.s. war in afghanistan." join our three-hour conversation with your phone call, e-mails, and tweets sunday at noon eastern on c-span2.

and what previous programs at booktv.org. >> c-span's original documentary on the supreme court has been newly updated. sunday, you will see the grand public places and those only available to the justices and their staff. and you will hear about how the court works from all the current supreme court justices, including the newest justice elena kagan. also, learn about some of the accord's recent developments. "the supreme court," home to america's highest court caring for the first time in high- definition sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. every weekend on c-span 3, experience american history tv, starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern. 40 hours of people and events telling the american story. here historic speeches by national leaders and eyewitness accounts of events that shaped our nation. visit museums, historical sites and college campion's -- campus

as as top professors and leading historians build and to america's past. american history to be, all weekend, every weekend, when c- span 3. >> "washington journal" continues. it so our guess armstrong williams is a readiness to be talks -- talk-show host and columnist. -- host: our guest is armstrong williams, talk-show host income of this. you have a recent piece called "finding fiscal religion." looking at the bush era tax cuts and the deal president obama cut to extend them with republican leadership in congress, and you say this is an interesting exercise to return to the debate and analyze some of the reasons given for not supporting the measure. what do you think of the deal? guest: well, libby, if you remember, at the onset when the president was absolutely certain

he would not extend the bush tax credits, especially to the wealthy, he said it would only benefit the rich and does nothing to stimulate job growth and the economy. and then all of a sudden it became an extension for job growth, that it would create jobs, help small business owners who otherwise were struggling in a debilitating economy. somehow or another, the president found religion as to why the last thing you need to do in a struggling economy is add a further taxes to the individual taxpayer, especially small business owners, which are responsible for 80% of job creation in this economy. i think the president came to the realization that an order to give this economy a chance to create jobs, he has to partner with the small business owners and get away from them becoming an remaining his adversary. so, instead of having an adversarial role, a role of let

us find issues we come work together on. i actually think the passing of the bush tax cuts was a good thing, good for the economy, especially when it comes to the engine of the economy, business people. but i think you have an even deeper problem. some people argue that extending the bush tax cut was just another stimulus package, and of the bailout to the economy, and in the long run, how are you going to pay for this? part of the compromise -- this is where we run into serious long-term problems. even when the fed share for 90 monetized the economy with the $600 billion, while he may have helped some situations in the short term, in the long term it will prove more devastating. an economy has its own ecology, its own way of correcting itself, just like our biological bodies. we have the ability to heal ourselves if there is not a lot of tampering and induced drugs.

the economy is similar. because of the economy was not given a chance to work out the kinks there are many problems we are beginning to see now in terms of inflation, hyperinflation -- if you look at the report recently where except in washington, d.c., prices, home values have dropped substantially and they see no recovery in sight. a part of the compromise, when i was getting too, this was not a principled position, part of the president's willingness to extend the bush tax cuts was to extend the unemployment benefits. look, i am a critic of extending the unemployment benefits, but in all fairness, if you look at how the money was spent in the past, the bailout for banks, the bailout to help verizon, harley- davidson, yes, how you justify spending this kind of money on these entities? the most important engine in the american economy is the american

people, and if you can waste is money in bailing out the industry's, why not extend the unemployment that it -- benefits to every american struggling to find their way in life? i don't want to despair to those seeking an unfunded benefits, because you have to understand, many people run into health crisis with loved ones where they must have a procedure and they use their homes as collateral, they use their savings because we are a country -- we believed we do the right thing for a loved one and suffering, god will bless us and will to buy -- multiplied our blessings. unfortunately it does not always turn out that way. but at some point we have to get to the point of of when does it become enough. there are some -- a few in the society who really, you replace their desire to do for themselves, you cripple their initiative to find jobs, to return to the work ethic that built this nation.

host: you say two things -- you are saying people need to be helped if they fall into circumstances, but on the other hand, it should not go on to long. guest: it cannot go on to long. we cannot afford it? how do you spend that which you did not have? i think the united states government -- we have people complaining that these guys are out of control spending, no fiscal discipline, but yet it mirrors the american people in this country. many americans cannot have their fiscal house in order. they spent that which they did not have. reckless. look like -- for example, i saw recently with the court tossed out miller's challenge to murkowski and murkowski will be sworn in the next congress. however, miller was winning, because he said we have to stop this dependency on the government, we have to stop the handout and alaskans have to

stand of their own -- but murkowski said, are you willing to lose this benefit, this tax exemption, this benefit, and alaskans overwhelmingly said, no, and they wrote the name into a firm that committed to government welfare. host: how you see the tea party shaping 2011? guest: the tea party, to many americans, including myself, was really the best thing that has happened to this country in a long time. you may talk about the flaws of the tea party, you may talk about extremists, but all parties can look at itself and find the same in their house. the tea party wants to return this country to financial discipline. to responsible and a focus on austerity. getting rid of the earmarks. i think when the congress tried

to pass this trillion-dollar budget which over 6000 earmarks, i think it was the voices of the tea party, those coming in to congress and those voices still heard round the country that stepped in and said, no, this is the very thing the american people were sending a message about in a recent midterm election. this is not what we want. they pulled back. while they passed parts of the, it will being -- when it passed part of it, it will be on congress to look at it and say how we cut the pork. both -- most congressman survive and are reelected by having earmarks, so how do you in one fell swoop sees the way of doing business with the stroke of a pen? they will fight for it until their death. the bottom line is can the tea party -- it is easy to be against something, very easy. it is a whole different scenario when you go into the body that

we see from this beautiful site of c-span, and actually govern. but i actually think they can and will have an impact in the long run. host: what you see as the strategy for the gop in the coming year? guest: listened, i think -- listen, it is a good insight question that can never be asked enough. they definitely cannot go into this leadership position with the mindset of punishing the president, defeating the president, being against everything the president proposes. one of the things that came out of the extension of the bush tax cuts, the passing of start, the feet of the american dream act is that americans -- defeat of the dream act, they want the president and the white house to work together. i think the gop has to challenge health care. i think they have much to work

with. if you look at the census report and the landscape of the country and redistricting, things like ohio, and others gaining seats run the country, this is certain -- it took talking about congressman chris a niche. guest: he is in jeopardy. but there is a lot of leeway in terms of health care and how to implement it. but they also have to have the boldness to say, yes, the present's health care bill has decided to law and it starts taking effect immediately in january but we will not fund certain aspects that we do not think is fiscally this possible or if it is going to ensure -- not going to ensure real health care. host: republican caller from buffalo. caller: question. always talking fiscal responsibility. why not cut out corporate

subsidies shipping jobs overseas, and if you could name me one job that the bush tax cuts have created for america, i would be appreciated. guest: you know, i hear this -- and thank you for calling. listen, the government does not create jobs. the government can provide incentives and reduce the burdens on those that create job opportunities in this country. being a small business owner and someone in media, i have an understanding of, if you implement a health-care bill where the premiums have already increased 17% to 18% and they go as high as 230% to 40% increase and you have a struggling business and you cannot navigate your business in tough times, you have to make tough decisions. that decision will be sometimes you have to lay off people, or sometimes you have to shut your doors. i think when government policies

and initiatives do not burden the small business owner, i think the small business owner has a far better chance of riding in this economy, and they will do the right thing and hire not only full-time employees but part-time employees, giving people an opportunity. that is how the jobs are created. and i think that is impossible to ignore. host: armstrong williams is a columnist and talk-show host and -- on both radio and tv. he has been on the president's commission of white house fellows under president bush and also the host of "on a point of" from 2002 until 2005. payless and confidential assistant to chairman of equal opportunity commission and presidential appointee to the u.s. department agriculture a legislative assistant to u.s. representative carroll campbell and legislative aide and adviser to u.s. senator john berman. how the use of identified, do you consider yourself a

republican, -- how do you identify yourself, as a republican, tea party? guest: i am a conservative commentator. i went through a difficult period a few -- with no child left behind with the bush administration and i actually thought my media career and would never have an opportunity to appear on broadcasts. so, i made up my mind that it is an inherent conflict for people in the media to also contract with the government. .

i'm not in the republican camp or the democratic camp but i am a third generation republican. i will always be a republican because it's the party of my parents and i do embrace the tea party. not because i'm a supporter, give contributions to the pea party but they represent many of the values when it comes to fiscal responsibility that i believe in. host: digging into the archives, just to alias date our listeners, what the education department. this is a story from 2005. support among black families, the bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his

nationally syndicated television show. that is you. what does that say about you? it seemed like you changed on what it means to be a commentator. guest: i never saw myself as a journalist. i saw myself as a commentator, as a pundit. everyone knew that i favored republicans, i favored their positions. you know, even though -- and i'm not trying to correct the record here -- we did disclose that we were paid by the u.s. department of education. the only time it wasn't disclosed, where i used bad judgment was "the tribune" out of chicago where i mentioned it without being disclosed that we were paid by the u.s. department of education. it was bad judgment. i paid a huge price for it. you know, journalism is a trusted institution. it is such an important place

for information, and people who view and watch this broadcast and you and c-span and the proliferation media that's out there, they got to believe that what they hear is that you believe in it, it's credible and not -- that someone's not paying you to say it or you being influenced by something you are going to benefit from it. i think that's important. where we begin to lose trust in journalism people will turn you off. i've had a very tough time recovering from that. you know, people -- even when i write columns now people remind me, aren't you the guy that took that $240,000? i paid the price, i'm the best armstrong williams i have ever been in my life and that goes back to -- i had to go back to my value system, go back to my belief system, the things my parents taught me. i have to got to not only write it, it's more important that i live it for myself and i've

learned to do that. host: let's go to the phones. marcus, independent line, decatur, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you're on with armstrong williams. go ahead. caller: the first thing i'd like to speak about, we're blessed to have dick durbin as senator. host: ok. please continue. we can hear you. caller: and secondly, with medicare and medicaid. if medicare and medicaid would be paid back the money that's been borrowed from them over the years there would still be a surplus. host: ok. let's get a response. guest: you know, medicaid, medicare, social security are the three guardrails of sacred cows in this country that are almost untouchable. we know they're bankrupt. and we know that it's just a matter of time before they're depleted of their funds. and to talk about being paid

back what is owed, i mean, if you look at state governments across the country from illinois, california and michigan and even new york, a lesser set, on the brink of bankruptcy, they just don't have the money. they just don't. they were reckless in nair spending. they were irresponsible -- they were reckless in their spending. they were irresponsible. the way that medicare and medicaid and social security has been instituted and implemented has to drastically change because even now they're talking about raising the retirement age to 69. why? because they just don't have the money and i think by 2015, at least by 2016, 2017, that it will totally go bust. host: another illinois caller. jerry on our democrats line. hi, there. caller: hey, hi. mr. williams, i was going to talk to you. i think part of the criticism

that was leveraged your way in terms of the no child left behind is we know quite frankly the act, although it was good in theory, from a practical standpoint, it's just absolutely undoable. it was more of a philosophical debate. i think that's why you were heavily criticized. i guess that's another topic. but the unemployment piece -- and you did articulate well the limit that the republicans are in. many of them talked about not extending unemployment insurance. well, how can you do that and still be for families? how can you do that when we bailed out corporations? i think how you articulated that was absolutely correct. republicans do have a problem in that regard.

republicans have to be careful when they go into the next election term about criticizing that piece of the obama legislation. i think obama has shown great leadership in compromising the tax cuts but also getting some of the things. and i understand the congressional black caucus was upset of how it went about, but i think that shows great leadership. they have to take a great standpoint even though it will cost him some political ammunition. but i do welcome other debate that you have with individual responsibility. i have kind of followed your career. i like where you are right now. i think you're analyzing a lot more center, and so i appreciate communicating with you. have a good day. guest: thank you. the caller, libby, raises an important issue. you know, i don't always feel that the media sometimes

understands the debilitating crisis this country is really in. i don't think they get it. i think the most important story of 2010 was the collapse and the bankruptcy of greece because i firmly believe that the 800-pound gorilla in the room is the united states of america. and conceptually, conceptually people cannot even fathom of something like that happening to the united states. i mean, look at what's happening in europe and france and london and the protests. the very policies -- and this is what's mind-boggling to me -- the very policies that this administration seems to want to initiate in this economy and across the board are the very policies that the europeans are fighting and abandoning because it's come back to just haunt them in the worse kind of way.

if you look at the fact in london they want to raise tuition and the outcry against that. they want to cancel the arts. they feel it should come more from the private sector. and if you're in a crisis -- and this is what we're failing to understand -- somewhere somehow you must sacrifice. and i think with the new speaker of the house, congressman boehner, sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for because the president no longer has full ownership of what happens to this economy going forward. and the bottom line is what this caller hinted to, and i thank him for his kind words, is that you must create jobs. you can talk about bailout, you can talk about foreign policy, what he just described, libby, people can't go to the gas pump. people can't go to grocery stores. and people just don't know how they're going to live day-to-day. i understand this because i'm on the radio every day and i hear the pain from callers

which makes me much more sensitive to the fact that this country is in crisis. they're on the brink. now, you probably could never think when you look at places in europe and around the world that we could have civil unrest in this country, whether it's an attack on the government, whether it's a protest, and it becomes violent. i tell you, unless we get unemployment and this economy in working order, what you're seeing around the world could actually happen on american soil and that is frightening. host: conservative columnist and host armstrong williams is our guest. let's hear from eugene on our republicans line in royal oaks, michigan. welcome. hi, eugene. caller: hi, williams. i want to congratulate you. it's been a while since i called and i almost lost what i wanted to say. but i got to congratulate you. i've listened to you and i live in michigan and i used to listen to you on the radio and i used to have a lot of respect

for you. i just wish you could be a role model like walter williams and dr. tom sewell. and i think you might have some help from the last election with scott and allen. guest: talking about tim scott and allen west, two people just re-elected. it's been sometime since the republican party has had the message, put the resources, the necessary resources to go in places and really find black conservatives that share that message. i think this is a tribute to chairman michael steele. i know he's fighting for his life right now to retain his position as chairman of the republican party but there's a lot of good that's happened on his watch and you can certainly point to what the caller was just alluding to. host: let's take a look at a

piece that's in the paper today from "the washington post" looking at chairman steele seeking to keep the top spot. he will join r.n.c. debate. he confirmed that he'll join the r.n.c. debate. you had a recent column called "the man who just won't quit." tell us about your perspective on michael steele and if you like to see him retain chairman of the r.n.c. guest: you know, michael steele is very complex. i have been certainly his critic as i was in that piece about the man that will never quit. you know, it takes 85 votes from the body to retain that seat. you know, everyone knows about his spending habits. you know, i look at it like this in the long run, and the bottom line is just like being

president of the united states, libby. you take credit for all the good, you take credit for all the bad. and no one can deny that two years ago when president barack obama was elected, no one that it was possible that the republican party could be in the kind of position it is -- it's in today. i remember an article, i think it was in "time" magazine where they had a piece boldly saying that maybe the republican party may become extinct, nonexistent. there was such celebration over president obama. who would have thought that we would be in this position? so it happened on steele's watch. i mean, it started with new jersey, virginia and then scott brought in massachusetts and then the tsunami and the that lacking that the president spoke about in september. so you must give him credit. imagine if he didn't have plane distractions created by himself

and sometimes the inability to discipline himself and to show fiscal responsibility in his own house, imagine how much further along the republican party would be, but you must give him credit that he's put the republican leadership in this country, especially when you look at the landscape and the census and the number of legislative seats that the republicans have gained all across the country, i mean, it's phenomenal. whether he can win again or not i any it's a tough call. i think it's up in the air. but i don't think he will quit. i wanted him to bow out gracefully. it's a fight i felt he did not need. ultimately it's his decision and i respect his decision to want to retain his decision as national chair. host: there was a time when steele would be heralded for his never say die attitude, for his tenacity to keep fighting even in the face of extreme odds. that was the michael steele that no one wanted to throw in the towel.

but that was then, and this is now. today, for the sake of his own party, the man must gracefully step down from his post as chairman of the g.o.p. guest: yes, absolutely. but obviously he answered that and he's decided to run again. host: let's hear from henry, democrats line, michigan. good morning, henry. caller: good morning. armstrong, your rebirth and repackaging is a testament to the deviousness of corporate media and a testament to the stupidity of the american people. host: well, henry, you don't have to be personal in your attack. caller: i'm not being personal. this is a fact. the first thing that came out of his mouth when he first opened his mouth was that president obama saw the light, changed his mind on tax cuts for the rich as a stimulating effect on the economy and that is simply not true. the president would not have

entered into that deal had the republicans followed his lead and instituted all the package deal inside that tax cut where small businesses can write off 100% of whatever they reinvest in their retooling and the payroll tax cuts, all those are the stimulating effects, but armstrong wants to disassemble and bifurcate and obstruct people. guest: i respect the caller. obviously he may have misinterpreted what i said in the beginning and that's fair. my only point was that the president never wanted to extend the bush tax cuts, and because he lost the mid-term election he had to compromise. host: and particularly for the highest earning americans. guest: he had to and it's

extended for another two years. that's undisputed. host: what do you say about that negotiating with the democratic-led senate and the republican house? guest: well, the president -- it doesn't stop our pursuit of missile defense. the only reason why they say he's successful is because the republicans did not join the bandwagon until much later. they joined the bandwagon much later because the republicans, especially on the foreign relations committee, ended up supporting the president because it's a bill they needed and wanted to embrace. it's said in this country, you know, i think most people -- and this is a drumbeat that i've heard around the country -- doesn't want to see any party dominate both houses of congress and the white house at the same time. they want bipartisanship. they want the checks and balances where they keep each

other in check. if you look at the polls, most americans overwhelmingly support the bush tax cuts and the packages that were extended and that were passed by this congress. and so the president can look at this and say, wow, i'm finally listening to the people and the republicans do the same. but the republicans have also shown their unwillingness, because they have to walk a fine line, they're not willing to play this game of bipartisanship if it compromises the very principles that will return this country to a -- to financial as you taret, that will -- austerity, they are not going to support the president blindly. they're willing to work with the president but they will work with the president on things that they feel that they feel they can be agreeable on. i think for a short-term victory period the republicans have won, but they must govern come january 20. and how that plays out is a horse of a different color. host: let's go to patrick, independent line, los angeles.

good morning. caller: hello. i have to agree with the previous caller. i think mr. williams should -- you constantly repeat the talking points as in the government doesn't create jobs. all the soldiers in iraq and afghanistan, are they jobs? this is just republican talking points. you repeat this crap over and over again. nobody challenges you. this is how they get away with it. the same thing about social security. it's not broke. it's owed lots of money by the government. keep repeating it's broke, it's broken bone, it's bankrupt. [inaudible] you can't wait to get your hands on it and take it away from the hardworking people. guest: with all due respect, sir, in los angeles, not only is our government broke, it's near financial bankruptcy if we don't discipline ourselves over the next several years.

it's fascinating, and i understand this, we all do it. you know, people don't want to face the reality of the situation in this country, whether it comes to social security, medicare, medicaid, because people want to believe that while, yes, the government creates jobs but how does the government create anything? by taxpayers. the government cannot do anything without the taxpayers' money. and we want the government to show more respect for how hard we work and earn our money instead of just weighsing the money. in terms -- wasting the money. in terms of another comment you made about the recklessness, i don't think i'm too far from you when it comes to the unemployment benefits. i don't want people to further suffer. i said it's a tough situation and a tough predicament for many americans that find themselves in these very challenging times and i do think the government has a role to play but i think it should

be a limitted role. at some point an individual must stand and fend for themselves. it's not the government's role to take care of you. i don't think it's the government's role to provide health care. i think it's the government role, what you just said, to defend against foreign enemies. i think the government has far overstepped its role and doing things it shouldn't ble doing. it's one of the reasons we find ourselves in financial dire straits today. at what point do we get to be not just consumers but producers, i mean, the economic -- the engine that we once were? we were the engine of society. the idea of whether it was in math, going back to the industrial revolution. we are in an information age now and we don't have the baby boomers who brought so much industry and so much wealth in the dot-coms to this country. i mean, it's one of the things that saved former president bill clinton. at least when he was president, the reason he was able to balance the budget and why he was able to give president bush that incredible balanced

budget, it's because he had true entrepreneurs, true geniuses of industries working with him that brought about and helped the economy from the dot-com. that does not exist today for president barack obama. americans are the best engine, not only for industry, entrepreneurship and recovering this economy. look what happened over the last few days. for the first time in three years, americans have spent -- more money than ever during the holiday season. but guess what, it's not enough, because of the housing crisis. it continues to collapse. and while the american people are doing their roles, we got to find more americans instead of just having their habbeds out waiting on the government to take care of them and what you got to do is extend your hands to the government and create industries and create opportunities to build this economy back to where it once was. host: let's go to shawn, republican caller, in winston-salem. how are you doing this morning? caller: i guess i have two statements that i'd like to make to mr. williams.

the first one would be going back to when he was speaking in regards to health care. i notice that there are companies that offer services throughout the country, but in my state there are only two primary health care companies that offer services. explain to me that while these companies can offer services throughout the country but they can't be a competitive field in regards to offering health care throughout the country? that's the first part of my statement. the second part would be is, if you follow the history of medicare and medicaid, when it was first introduced, the system was right in terms of how many doctors were taking advantage of the system, in regards to how much they were charging the government for patient care versus private practice for patient care. if you want to understand exactly why medicaid is in the situation that it's in, you need to go back to those

beginning physicians who really just took advantage of the system. now, part two would be, we speak of -- i hear you speak of the government not being in the position to create jobs, but people like myself who want to come out of the private sector and become that entrepreneur but when i go to a lender, the so-called small business startup, i can't get any funds. i have a perfect business plan. i hear it so many times, but they tell me, well, there's really -- we don't have enough money, we don't have the money to do these things. why not come up with a true, a true system of being able to get the entrepreneur back out into the mainstream economic system so that, yes, americans can, can be able to grab hold of this economic problem that

we have and do exactly what you republicans have always preached about, well, the government is not in the position to create jobs, we need to do a lot of things? but when you're in position to not get the funds in order to start that small business, what exactly do you have? host: shawn, let's get a response from mr. williams. guest: i think he's on par when he talks about the competition, when he's mentioned it. if you want to have effective, workable health care, you must make it transportable. you must be able to transport your health care wherever your job may take you. and also intrastate. you must have health care not being decided by two major companies. you must have other players become involved where individuals can go. and what it creates is competition where you can go and get a lower cost for your premium. and that does not exist. the other thing you don't deal

with with health care is tort reform. i mean, doctors spend 20% of their time on medical malpractice lawsuits and defensive medicine. that has to be addressed. and the other issue that he talked about in terms of the government and small business owners, you know, one of the ways that the government must understand that it can start up this economy is with startups, small business owners. that is really a solution, finding ways to get banks to loosen credit. you know, the banks made out like bandits. they have all this money. they're not lending, they're not refinancing, people are in foreclosure and they're just sitting on it and there's got to be a way for the president and his cabinet, especially secretary -- treasury secretary and housing secretary must use their bullet pulpit. and if the bullet pulpit is not working through legislation you have to find a way for these banks to go back to small business owners like shawn and others who have the ideas and

all they need are banks and sometimes, you know, banks are not the only way that you can find cash flow. sometimes there are angel investors out there, there are people out there with private funds that are looking for individuals like shawn. you just have to find a way to access them, put together a business plan and convince them that their idea -- your idea and concept is worth -- worthy of investment. host: let's hear from skip, a democratic caller out in california. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. let me tell you, this is such a bunch of republican talking points. this guy is a shield for the republican party. i'm a plumber in california. there's no work out here. my company had over 300 plumbers. now, they have 20, and it's hard for them to hold on to them. i've been out of work for three years. nobody's building houses. nobody's doing anything. the one thing i know about

conservatives is they don't want to pay for anything. they came in with a surplus and immediately gave tax breaks to people and started two wars and put a medicaid prescription drug on the tab. you know, this whole thing about we want to pay for things, that's a big bunch of crap. guest: you know -- and thank you for your comments. you know, there's nothing under the sun, libby. we've seen unemployment crisises like this before when reagan took office. i mean, not just on unemployment, but interest rates were sky high. what did the president do? he fired the comptrollers. instead of him increasing government spending, he reduced government spending. they went in and encouraged entrepreneurship, small business owners, and i understand the call remember saying he has not been able to find work for almost -- for three years.

i mean, yes, the government has some role to play but the government cannot be all things to all people. at some point you cannot say that the government has to be the engine and the safety net for everything. people have to become creative and disciplined and get back to some kind of work ethic to create work for themselves. you know, there are people that cannot take care of themselves. i think children and senior citizens should be -- that's something we should be compassionate but very sensitive about. but for grown people in the prime of their life, like the guy who called in from california, i think at some point you have to start seeing the glass as having nothing in it and you got to begin to fill the glass up. it's a reflection of you. i don't want to appear to be insensitive here to say you cannot find a job, but i refuse to believe that for three years with your skills and intellect you cannot find a job or create

a job for the last three years. i find that to be unacceptable, especially if you think of how we struggled to maintain this country, what this country has gone through the great depression and how we were able to overcome it through the american people. i refuse to accept his argument. host: one last quick item. "usa today" has a piece -- in -- as we look to 2012, anyone making you excited out there? guest: actually not. we've seen this american idol before where we walked these contestants out. it's like a beauty contest, palin, maybe secretary of state

hillary clinton, and you have rick santorum. mitt romney. you parade these contestants out. it's like a butte owe contest. one thing we found from the recent presidential election, a year before he was elected president, he created a revolution. he was disciplined. he made the people believe again. he became president of the united states. i think someone like that can emerge from the republican or the democratic side. it's just too early to tell. host: armstrong williams, thank you for being with us. guest: no, thank you for having me, libby. host: coming up we'll talk about women's pay with the author of "shortchanged: why women have less wealth and what can be done about it." but first a news update from c-span radio. >> here are some of the headlines. denmark's intelligence service says it has arrested four people suspected of plotting a terror attack against a nextel

cup that printed -- against a newspaper that printed the prophet mohammad cartoon. they say they were residence of sweden. air, road and -- are catching up. most flights at newark's liberty airport are taking off and landing as scheduled so far today. but there are still delays at la guardia and kennedy airports as airlines continue catching up on hundreds of flights grounded since the weekend snowstorm. the energy nrge department today releases an update on fuel stockpiles. according to platts, analysts are looking for crude oil stockpiles to decline by 3.2 million barrels while gasoline stocks are seen as rising by 1.7 million. meanwhile, in iran, fuel consumption has fallen by a fifth since that government began slashing energy ensued subsidies last month.

gasoline prices quadrupled and bread prices tripled after cuts came into effect december 19. part of the government's effort to boost iran's ailing economy by reducing the massive drain on the state budget from the subsidies. and those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> you know, the senate is often called the most exclusive club in the world. but i wonder really if it's so exclusive. if someone from a town of 300 people and a high school senior class of nine students can travel from a desk in that small school to a desk on the floor of the united states senate? >> search for farewell speeches and hear from retiring senators on the c-span video library with every c-span program since 1987. more than 160,000 hours all online, all free. it's washington your way. >> watch "book tv" all this

week in primetime. tonight with your phone calls and a look back at the year end books live with jen risko. all from this year's national book festival, former first lady laura bush. then, tony blair, the longest serving labour party tony blair. "book tv" in primetime all this week on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest, mariko chang, is the author of "shortchanged: why women have less wealth and what can be done about it." thank you for being with us this morning. guest: oh, it's a pleasure to be here. host: you're joining us from boston. wanted to mention that. you opened your book in the chapter called "the women's wealth gap" and you talked about the president signing into law the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. what's the impact of that law? guest: oh, an absolutely monumental piece of legislation. however as important as it is

for women to have equal pay in the workplace, income and equality is really just the tip of the iceberg. wealth is much, much more important for women's economic status and it's also much more unequally distributed. just to give you a general idea, the top 1% of the population owns about 34% of the total wealth. but the bottom 60% of the population combined own only about 4% of the total wealth. host: what is it that contributes to that? is it women making different investment choices? is it the fact as you write in your book that women are sometimes taking care of families of a single mom and may not have as much disposable income to invest, what are the reasons? guest: right. well, primarily the reason that -- the tremendous wealth gap exists and for women they only own about 36% of the total wealth of men.

it's not necessarily because women are making radcally different investment choices or -- radically different investment choices or spending money differently. in fact, research shows that women and men spend about the same percentages of their income on nonessential items, although the items might vary. however, research shows that the real causes of the wealth gap are the fact that women don't have access to the wealth escalator and women are more likely to have custody of children and, therefore, to have to make their incomes go farther supporting more than one person. in terms of the wealth escalator, what we find here is that the wealth escalator are things that translate their income into wealth more quickly. just to give you a couple of examples, the first would be fringe benefits. now, this was an incredibly important part of the wealth

escalator. it would be 401-k's, paid sick days, and these things actually put money in the pockets of people directly and help them build wealth. unfortunately women are much less likely to have access to the wealth escalator so, for instance, with the fringe benefits they're less likely to work in jobs with fringe benefits and they're also more likely to work part time and part-time workers have less access to the wealth escalator. host: dr. mariko chang is our guest. she is the author of "shortchanged: why women have less wealth and what can be done about it." the numbers to call if you'd like to join the conversation, republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. and independent callers, 202-628-0205. and dr. chang wrote in her book that women may make 78% of what men make but they own only 36% as much wealth. the comments about two basic

reasons for this. persistence. men have greater access to the wealth escalator which translates into wealth at a faster rate. and women are more likely to shoulder the burden of single parenthood and have less disposable income. when we look at congress and recent legislation and attempts to pass laws, the paycheck fairness act failed in the senate earlier this year. what would that have done? guest: excuse me. yes, this is ironically two years after the passage of the lilly ledbetter act. the paycheck fairness act is needed in addition to the lillyledbetter act. the reasons we need this type of legislation is because first of all employers can still discriminate against workers or fire workers for discussing their pay with other workers. and that prevents people from

gaining information about what people are paid at their company. and secondly, a lot of people don't realize that women are not offered the same compensatory and punitive options when they're suing for sex discrimination in pay as people who are suing for racial discrimination in pay. so currently women don't have the same protections razz people who are suing for -- as people who are suing for other types of discrimination. host: texas, our democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: good. caller: i've always listened. this is my first time calling. i'd like to ask a couple of questions, if i could. since you're talking about the disparity in income and wealth, i was just wondering, do you go more into as far as with women the cultural breakdown of that

wealth and if you could speak on that as far as like black women compared to other counterparts? and then also, how is the new ledbetter act, if i'm not mistaken, how will that affect that as well? guest: yes, i'm really glad that you asked about cultural differences or racial differences. that's one of the main points in the book is that women, our disadvantage with respect to wealth, but those disadvantages are not uniform across racial groups. just to give you an idea for some of the most recent data that have calculated for the racial wealth gap for women of color, black and hispanic women have about $100 of median wealth. so that means that the typical black or hispanic woman has only about $100 in wealth. now, that doesn't mean that they only have $100, let's say, in the bank. what it means is when you take all of their assets together

and then subtract their debt, that balance is about $100. now, that difference is tremendous when you compare them to black and hispanic men but also in comparison to whites so that $100 figure represents that black and hispanic women have only about a penny of wealth for every dollar of wealth that's owned by their same-race male counterparts and only a fraction of a penny of wealth that's owned by white men and white women so there's a tremendous gender and racial wealth gap combined. host: mariko chang writes younger women are more disadvantaged than their older peers. by race and ethnicity, more than half of all single hispanic women living in the united states are wealth poor. they have zero wealth or the value of their debts surpasses the value of any assets. in contrarks 26% of single white women and 36% of single black women are wealth poor.

how shocking were these numbers for you? you work in this field researching this. were you surprised when you dug into the figures to realize there was such a difference there? guest: i was absolutely shocked, and i think it's because we are really used to thinking about how well women are doing in terms of income. and so even though we have by no means closed the gender income gap, i was still shocked at the tremendous magnitude of the gender wealth gap. and so i was also shocked as to why, you know, as a society and researchers very went become aware of this spatially -- especially with respect to racial differences, there is documents documenting racial wealth gaps. so i felt inspired and felt it was very important for us to draw attention also to the gender aspect of the wealth gap. host: let's go to syracuse, new york. ray on the republicans line. good morning. caller: hi.

i don't believe your guest is at least from what you've shown to this point, taken a real intellectual and rigorous look at this. for years it's been shown over and over again that the high levels of illegitimate births in the black and hispanic community relative to the white community, of course on directly as to how many people in those races are poor. so the issues seem to be choices people are making. in large part on whether to be married and whether to have children and when to do each of those. so i just don't see -- she hasn't mentioned that yet, but the quote of statistics that you just read indicate that. host: let's get a response, ray. guest: right. thank you very much for that

comment. and i think that a lot of people do believe that the wealth gap, especially between blacks and whites, has a lot to do with the fact that black women or other minority women are much more likely to be unmarried and to have children outside of marriage. and that no doubt does contribute to the wealth gap. i would totally agree. however, i think we should decouple the situation from i guess people i guess making deliberate choices to reduce their wealth because what we see is that even when black women, let's say, and white women or black women and white men, you know, are single and not married and working full time, there's still institutional structures that are tagged onto things like their employment that make it less likely for women to build wealth. so, for instance, black women in particular might be working just as hard but the types of jobs that they have or other

factors that affect their employment mean that they're less able to tap into let's say the fringe benefits that other workers are able to tap into. host: mariko chang is an independent consultant helping universities diversify their faculty, and she conducts original research and program evaluation. up to 2007 she was an associate professor of sociology at harvard university. her website is mariko-change. independent calling from new england. caller: information very sobering. my circumstance is i'm a meal and raised three sons by myself. early on when they were toddlers i was getting the standard deduction for children, $500 or $600. it never corresponded to what it actually cost to raise a child. it seems that if you're -- i never made more than $50,000 a

year so i didn't accumulate a lot of wealth, but the circumstances of the blue collar world and what you have access to and what it costs to raise children is brutal and there's economic consequences. you know, we have politicians constantly talking about family values and they're constantly nunesing a tax code to make sure that corporations and -- have every possible convenience for themselves. we have to get back to a family-oriented, child-rearing orienting society. guest: yes. excuse me. i'm getting over a cold so my voice keeps going. but my hat is off to you. anyone that's trying to raise children by themselves is, you know, doing a tremendous job. and as you plentioned, there's not a lot of support -- mentioned, there's not a lot of support out there for people

like yourselves because children are very, very costly. your point is exactly one of the points that i'm making in the book. however, you happen to be a man doing this. and usually it's women who are doing this. they're raising the children and they can't take advantage of any wealth-building opportunities because their incomes simply don't go as far as if they didn't have children. so anyone who's raising children on their own, whether it's a man or a woman, is usually in this situation. however, usually the way our society is, it does tend to be women more likely than men who are raising the children themselves. host: one of the chapters of your books likes at the ways that women and men invest money and save money. women are less likely to own assets that are considered more financially risky but also have the highest average rates over time, stocks, investment real estate and business assets. women are often caught in a financial catch-22. their lower disposable incomes put them at a disadvantage for building savings, and their

lack of a financial safety net means their small ernest eggs are subject to depletion in crisis situations. because of these two factors, they cannot afford the risk and the longtime horizon necessary to secure higher rates of return on investments. guest: yes, that's absolutely true. in fact, women, as it turns out, are not necessarily always shying away from high-risk ventures, although that's part of it. part of it is that they can't afford to invest in risky investments because they need to have that money as a safety net. interestingly, there was a study that showed that when women do invest they actually do just as well or better than men because then we're likely to buy and hold over the long run. so women are absolutely able to invest and can do a very good job at it. however, they're less likely to be able to afford to take the risks of investing that men can take simply because they have

higher savings and more opportunities to do so. host: stuart on our democratics line. bridgeport, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm an attorney and i've had a few observations having done about 900 divorces in my career thus far. i see a certain pattern with the women. they tend not to have very much demand on their men and they don't choose very well who's going to be their spouse. and they wind up in a divorce court and excess -- in excess of 60% of the time. you can't be in a situation where you have the two kids at home to raise and you have the added cost of childcare to measure against your income. plus, it's limited how much

money the wife can -- and mother can get from the former spouse. guest: yes. in fact divorced women are in a particularly difficult situation with respect to i guess retaining any kind of marital assets. especially the types of assets like human capital that really help you build more and more wealth over the long run. so even if you equally divide assets at the time of divorce so that the man and the woman end up with an exactly equal share you'll find that over time the women are less likely to hold on to that wealth or build that wealth as quickly because they are taking care of the children. and also because if during the marriage they took some time out maybe or put their husband's career ahead of theirs, they find that they have much less earning ability. so even if things are equal at the time of divorce, what you find is that years later women

really are not at the same point that men are at with respect to their wealth and they fall in far behind. host: and mariko chang, you also look at married couples. you write that although it's often assumed that husband and wives have equal ownership of marital wealth, there is a complicated story. what's so complicated about it? guest: right. we have two general viewpoints about how marriage and wealth might be combined. one is that there's one person who makes all the financial decisions. this is kind of the older model, let's say, of the man being the head of the household and making all of the decisions. or we have another model that we assume that married people own wealth equally and control wealth equally. i did find in my research that there were some couples that fell into one or -- one category or the other. however, what i found was that the majority of couples actually adopted a different strategy where the man and the woman both held onto their own

pockets of income and wealth and then devised ways to meet common expenses. so, for instance, they would have their own checking account, their own savings account and then either contribute equally or in proportion to their income to common expenses. and this is ironically i think grows out of ideals of equality . and women wanting to contribute to household expenses and being able to contribute to household expenses. and it's also seen as a way of being fair in a sense that, you know, each person then contributes to common expenses but they can spend their leftover income however they want. so it also tends to avoid a lot of conflicts about, you know, who's spending money on what. however, where it turns out to necessarily not be so fair or equitable is that if women are earning less and still contributing equally or in proportion, they have far less

left over to do -- to spend as they please. and so that's something that we would totally miss if we were just looking overall at women's sort of marital wealth. we are missing the picture of how much money, how much wealth do they really have control over? you know, how much say do they really have in the total marital finances? and we're showing that they actually have a lot less than what we would assume. host: let's hear from antonio, independent caller in tampa, florida. hi, there. caller: how you doing? ma'am, i don't know. maybe i don't understand what you're saying. what i'm trying to understand is i don't think it's a choice by a woman to be on welfare. i don't think that's their choice. and i don't know about the opportunities really being there. and another thing you're talking about -- i know men and women are equal as human beings but maybe our roles are different and are not supposed to be equal, if you understand

what i'm trying to say. i don't know. it's just what i have to say. guest: right. yes. thank you for the comment. i don't think that women are choosing to not be wealthy. i think that women want to be wealthy just as much as men want to be wealthy. however, there are structures that are in place that make it easier for men to build wealth than women. so it's not necessarily that then are choosing or women are choosing to become wealthy or not become wealthy. however, i think it's entirely possible and if you look at society men and women have adopted some different roles in society. whether that's become -- because of socialization or biology or economics, you do see that men and women are taking, you know, somewhat different roles. and in fact, what i argue is that women's roles -- women's traditionally held role of being a caregiver should just be as equally as important as a breadwinner role. it doesn't mean that women have to become caregivers or men

have to become breadwinners but that the caregiving role should just be as awarded financially as other roles in society and that we're currently devaluing the caregiving role when we really should be honoring it and providing women and other caregivers with the economic resources that are commensurate to the important job that they're doing. host: that republican caller in winston-salem, north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. my question is -- i'd like to know if she has -- mrs. chang has run across a situation concerning women not being allowed to work in the united states, and then, also, if she could talk about some of the other institutional barriers that she's encountered. guest: sure. in terms of women not being allowed to work in the united

states, i guess i'm not sure exactly what you're referring to unless it's perhaps an immigration status or something like that. although historically there were a lot of laws that prevented women from working in the workplace in certain jobs or with certain types of employment and that's no doubt, you know, very, very important. but in terms of some other institutional factors, another really important one is actually the tax code. so, for instance, the fact that certain types of income are taxed at a different rate than others. so capital gains income, let's say, is taxed at a lower rate than earnings. and there are many rationals for that. however -- rationales for that. however, what we've learned is women don't own those fipes of assets like stocks, investment real estate, women are much less likely to own those type of things so they don't benefit to the same extent that women do from the lower capital gains

rate. so even things like the tax structure are really important, not only for helping people to build wealth but helping people to hold on to whatever wealth they're able to build. host: chandler, arizona. penny joins us on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i really thank mariko chang for really doing all the research because it really speaks to something i always talked about with my family. speak to how wealth has just never been historically transmitted from generation to generation and particularly the black community. an earlier caller talked about how minorities always having babies and not getting married and that's why we're poor. but my fick situation, i didn't even get married until i was 30. i had my masters in education. i planned and invested in my life before i started my family. i did get married. i have three children.

they're flourishing but i was the first one to be let go after 15 years as a teacher. and there are still some institutional, racial ideologies that really still perpetuate this situation. and historically we have not -- we had 400 years of slavery. i mean, my great grandmother was born a slave. there was never transferred from generation to generation. in the last three generations we just don't do well. whatever we build does not get transmitted to the next generation. we're constantly starting over and over and working against the ways. here i'm almost 50 years old and i still have nothing. thank you. guest: thank you. yes, thank you so much for bringing up that point. you're absolutely correct that one of the reasons why wealth and equality are so important, especially with respect to the racial wealth gap, is because wealth is translated across generations. so because certain families for

very historical reasons, such as blacks, were not able to acquire wealth to the same extent, let's say, as other groups. that inequity that happened perhaps generations ago is still affecting minorities today because they inherit less wealth than, i guess, the typical nonminority. and so people don't always think about that, but even in terms of your education. statistics show us that minorities are much less likely to be able to afford things like college. they're less likely to have parental or grandparent wealth or savings to help them through college. .

host: we have not talked about some of these other items. women under the age of 25 working full-time now earned 95% of what their male peers earned. and in major cities, women aged 21 to 30 are out-earning men their age. when we talk about women out- earning men, is that the generational shift, and will the trend continued and broaden out? guest: i am so glad you raised this. we have heard uplifting media stories about how young women are earning more, earning more college degrees, in many cases out-earning male counterparts, and that is absolutely the case. i went back to the data and looked at people under the age of 30 who were working full time, who had no children, were

not married, and you expect the differences between men and women would be minimal. there would be acting about the same in the labor market. what i found, very surprisingly, is that there was still a tremendous wealth gap between men and women. when i restricted to that young group of unmarried people, men had median wealth of about $7,000-$8,000. women had negative well, meaning that they owed more than they had in wealth. that is putting us into a very important trend, that women are graduating from college with a lot of debt. this is something i poked into the data to find out why it was that women had so much less well, negative falls, and a lot of that had to do with college loan debts. women are being saddled with much more college and get.

they have lower incomes when they graduate and are less able to pay off that debt. growing trends for people to finance their education with loans have an interesting impact on the gender wealth gap between men and women, because even if they are earning as much, or roughly as much, they have less wealth. with respect to earnings, i want to point out that when men and women are at younger ages, the earnings differences are generally lower. even if you start with men and women having roughly equal income, because of the types of jobs they are in and other factors, when you look at them years later, manso -- men's incomes increased much more dramatically than women's. host: i have a piece, "paycheck

fairness act -- good riddance." she argues that it may have been about equality but it is not about fairness. she poses a couple of scenarios. what if a woman -- we will call her and jane -- gets paid less because she does not do as much hard negotiating as john might? she raises a couple of other scenarios where someone might come in at a higher salary, a man might, because they got paid more at their prior job. how do you balance out the personal responsibility aspect of commanding -- of demanding more money and paid versus a law? host: the law does not penalize employers for the types of things she is mentioning.

the law allows for men and women to be paid differently, let's stay on job history and other factors that are important for job performance, like education, age, those types of things. the fact that men and women are paid to public does not automatically -- the fact that men and women are paid differently does not automatically mean there is discrimination. when you have men and women with equal qualifications and job history and same performance evaluation, everything with respect to the job and employment is the same, and they are being paid less. the legislation is much more concerned with differences that are not a result of job-related factors. host: chicago, illinois, ronnie, independent caller. caller: good morning, ladies. how are you?

host: good. go right ahead. caller: i am at 57, and i was amazed at how political mails make critical decisions for the mails regarding reproduction. -- for females regarding reproduction. do not agree that the problems your book has issue with -- do you not agree that the problems in your book has issue with is that the reason these things happen is political? voting, election day -- those who make the decisions are politicians. until we train our children to be conscious of the things that affect our lives, the government will keep us more concerned and for the public off regarding race, jobs, education -- we seem to be getting worser.

until those things change and we train our children, do you not agree that the problem is political? the politicians made these decisions and are causing these problems. would you not agree with that? guest: i do agree that what happens with the politicians and election day is extremely important. as women, as men, as sons and husbands and fathers and daughters, we must all take our financial and, i guess, our voting and legislative ability very seriously. we need to pay attention to what is happening in politics, we need to see how well olbermann is serving us. if we are not happy -- how well our government is serving us. if we are not happy with how they're doing, it is our responsibility to go to the polls and educate our children about the issues. i agree that there is a personal

responsibility there. however, we cannot overlook the fact that corporations have influence on policies, and the fact that there are so many politicians who are not women and not thinking in terms of a woman, those things absolutely matter as well. it is not simply that people need to get out and vote more, but in terms of who has influence over politics and the influence of corporations and other wealthy individuals -- that should not be overlooked as well. texasbernard writes from -- guest: that is one of the things that i talk about in the book. women are less likely to become entrepreneurs than men. entrepreneurrship is rising dramatically for women, and that

is something i'm happy to see, because entrepreneurship and wealth are related. it is one of the avenues that is available to everyone. if you look at the list of the wealthiest americans published every year by "forbes," you will see that of course inheritance of wealth matters, but many of the most wealthy people acquired their wealth through entrepreneurship. even though women's break entrepreneur -- women's rate of entrepreneurship is growing, it is not as large as men's rate. we need to support wittman's entrepreneur -- women's entrepreneurship as well. host: the wealthiest americans.

talk to us about why these names are important to you and what it says about wealth accumulation. guest: there are interesting things when you look at the list of wealthiest americans. what jumped out to me is that there are so few women on it. even though we hear these stories about women out-earning their male counterparts and they are having these wonderful opportunities they did not have in past, the wealth inequality is a very entrenched. when you look at the top wealth holders, it is a very male group. we do not see many women in the group. far fewer women than even i would have anticipated, knowing as much as i do about the gender wealth gap. it does not change much over time. if you look at the list of the top 10 or top 100, it is a fairly stable list, all the people moved in and out --

although people moved in and out, but the ratio of women to men has not changed much. it shows how entrenched the gender wealth that is. host: charles, republican in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to comment on bill gates and his not finishing college, and he is in entrepreneur. he is married. all these people are married to women, usually 20 years younger. i have heard that women control most of the wealth in the country. this lady who ran for the governor of california at spend tens of millions of dollars. there are politicians all over the country who are women, great politicians. i worked for the ceo at at&t, and they are good seo's. i never see discrimination. i've always heard that women control the money because men

die earlier. thank you. guest: sure, and i don't want to apply that there are not a lot of wealthy women out there. meg whitman, who i believe you are referencing, has tremendous wealth from entrepreneurship. but there are not as many to to finance a political campaign as there are men. there are some cases where women in have a lot of wealth. for most people, with noho -- widowhood is not a financial windfall. maybe a select group of women with a lot of wealth. they might increase their wealth with widowhood. but for most women, it has the opposite effect. it drains their resources. even couples who have managed to

build a sizable nest egg, oftentimes, because the man is less fortunate to pass away first, they have exhausted a lot of their financial resources with medical bills, home care, that type of thing could by the time he passes, the ball has decreased dramatically -- the wealth has decreased dramatically. one in five widows live in poverty. there are some wealthy widows out there, but for most women it is not a financial windfall, and by the time the man has died, they have much less wealth than you might have anticipated. host: what is one piece of good vice you have either for women interested in accumulating wealth, or politicians looking at how legislation can balance the dynamic? guest: sure, sure. with respect to women, one of the things they can do early on,

or at all ages, is to educate themselves about financial matters. men and women should all be doing this, not just women. also, people can really pay attention to whether or not they are "on the wealth escalator." when they get a job, does the employer offered 401k benefits? are you participating? are you participating to the maximum you can? you need to pay attention to those things. we are always focused on income, how much is this job. me, but there are other important benefits that are equally if not more important. how will this help me build wealth over the long run? there are things that the government can do. first, the united states is one of only two industrialized countries without a national paid parental leave. of 47 developing countries provide at least 12 weeks of

paid maternity leave at 100% of wages. that is something other countries are doing that we are not doing. also, if we think in terms of the social security, and this has tremendous impact on people in retirement, we see that women receive a far lower social security benefits than men, and one of the reasons is because of lower income, but also because if women spend any of their adult years out of the labor force in gauging and caregiving, children or parents or other relatives or even a spouse, or they work part time, those years are counted negatively against them, because years of low or zero earnings are averaged in. women receive far fewer benefits when it comes time to retire. in other countries, what they have done to make things more equal and really value the caregiving work women are doing

is provide caregiver credits to women or men who have lower earnings because they have left the labor market and are working part-time, to be engaged in caregiving. they are given credit so that when they retire, those years of lower earnings don't count negatively against retirement benefits. host: mariko chang, author of "shortchanged: why women have less wealth & what can be done about it." thank you for being with us. guest: thank you, it was a pleasure. host: coming up, more of our week-long series on food policy. first, at a news update from c- span2 ready. >> florida farmers have lost $15 million in this cold blast and it is likely to get worse. according to "st. petersburg times," the loss included fruits

and vegetables and aquaculture. three suicide bombers attacked the iraqi federal police headquarters in mosul today. while violence has subsided significantly in iraq in the past years, insurgents frequently target the country posted government institutions and security forces. american troops are preparing to leave by the end of next year. a top palestinian official says the palestinians will ask the u.n. security council soon to condemn israeli settlement construction. with a mideast peace talks stalled, it is part of a burgeoning palestinian campaign to increase international pressure on israel finally, san francisco has finished installing free why fight in its public housing facilities as part -- feree wi-fi in public

housing facilities as part of a public housing initiative. mayor devin use and says it will improve quality of life for his -- mayor gavin newsom says it will improve quality of life for residents. some of the headlines this morning on c-span radio. >> activist is on booktv's "in depth." a former journalist for the united nations, she is the author of eight books, including "before and after," and her latest, "ending the u.s. war in afghanistan." join us for the conversation sunday at noon eastern on c- span2. watch previous "in depth" programs at c-span.org. on thean's documentary

supreme court has been newly updated. sunday, you will see places only available to the justices and their staff and you will hear about how the court works from all the justices, including the newest justice, elena kagan. also, learn about the latest developments. hearing for the first time in high-definition, sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. every weekend on c-span3, experience american history tv. starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern, 48 hours of stories and eyewitness accounts of events that shaped our nation. a visit museums, historical sites, college campuses as top history professors and leading historians delve into america's past. all weekend, every weekend, on c-span3.

>> "washington journal" counties. host: this week "washington journal" examines food policy in america. today we talk about the sustainable food movement. tomorrow, we move onto childhood nutrition legislation, and friday, regulating organic food. the segments that already took place you can find on our website, c-span.org. our guest this morning, susan prolman, is the executive director of the national sustainable agriculture coalition. we have a special phone lines for you to call. susan prolman, talk to us about

what is sustainable agriculture. guest: there are many components of sustainable agriculture. first, it should provide a livable wage, care price for the work they produced. there is a problem where farmers and ranchers can barely break even. we are trying to make it economically sustainable and viable for them. sustainable agriculture also supports rural communities. money in local and regional food systems keeps circulating into the rural communities and the local area. it attacks the environment said that sustainable agriculture producers -- it sustains the environment sso that sustainable agriculture producers to protect wetlands and things like that. finally, very importantly, it provides healthful food for consumers.

we support fresh, helpful, local and regional foods. -- healthful, local and regional foods. host: what is the genesis of this movement? we think about farming in the old days, a lot of those would be part of what it meant to be a farmer. certainly, farmers would not have been farmers if it were not a sustainable life style. before we got into the big business of farming, living off the land had to be sustainable, because you had to care for your land to survive for future years. what is this movement about? guest: over the past several decades, we have seen a lot of concentration in agriculture. we have seen a lack of competition, where a small handful of companies controll many of the agricultural sectors. that has been problematic. we push for better living through chemistry and all this, and we have gone too far in the

direction of bigger, better, chemical use, etc. we are trying to move our agricultural policy in a better direction. host: is sustainable agriculture and as are the organic farming? -- is sustainable agriculture necessarily organic farming? guest: it is part of it, but there are other things farmers can do it beyond organic. host: and if they have to use herbicides or pesticides to help their crops to grow? guest: there are many things that farmers can do to be sustainable, using the local or regional food system, an organic definitely is part of it, but it goes beyond that as well. host: bob is calling us from

minnesota. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i read something once about genetically altered food, that they used genetics to change the makeup of the food and turn it into a drug. it seems to fight its way into the food -- seems to find its way into the food chain because of pollination and other things. guest: that raises a lot of issues. one is the pharmaceutical production of drugs, so that animals can be manipulated to be producing the pharmaceutical drugs in their milk. many people are deeply concerned about that. that is regulated by the fda, the food and drug administration. many consumers are concerned about it. there is also the issue of genetic modification of food, such as roundup-ready grains,

and what happens to neighboring farmers went wind drift carries these into other farms? what if they decided to use genetically modified seaeds? can they maintain organic purity? there are questions about that and at the u.s. department of agriculture, there is a program that takes a look at a lot of these issues. genetic modification of food is a big topic, and a lot of organizations, including member organizations of the sustainable agriculture coalition, tries to advocate for consumers on those issues. host: good morning, jack. caller: hi. i'm just calling concerning the issue of this woman with the sustainable food movement, if she believes in government intervention in these areas. if you take a look at our lives,

you see more and more of this -- like, prior to 1913, the government was really not in the lives of the people of the united states to much. we got our greatest growth prior to that. we had a very robust and strong people that developed this country. and really did not look for anything. wusses,"as "nation of the attorney general said, "a nation of cowards." we had evolved into both. unfortunately, i say this nation in decline. i am in my fifties, and there is a very interesting book -- i'm quite sure the woman here knows about it -- "when china will

rule the world." he makes salient points on this area. i think we are in decline and it is a sad story, because we're becoming a week people. guest: thank you for that comment. a couple of points come to my mind. one is the national sustainable agriculture coalition won a great victory, when our groups rallied together and advocated for reasonable and appropriate regulation in the food safety -- appropriate legislation in the food safety regulation. for processing would be treated the exact same way as a small and mid-sized farm that was going to, for example, a farmers' market or selling direct to consumers. we were able to have size- appropriate and amend the bill

through our advocacy to get size-appropriate legislation. we make sure we did not have the unintended consequence of providing regional and local food producers from selling directly to consumers. secondly, one of the things to think about is that our federal government does spend many billions of dollars on agriculture policy. what we are trying to do is shippft the direction of the money, the way that we spend it, in a better and more thoughtful strategy so that we are spending it to support sustainable agriculture and not to enforce practices that people not like. host: is the place that would best be done in the farm authorization bill? guest: that is coming up in 2012, the big legislative a vehicle through which most of the agriculture programs are

authorized. most of the programs run by the u.s. department of agriculture are authorized through this farm bill. that is the main focus of the national sustainable of agriculture coalition and many of our allies around the nation. we will be working on that over the next two or three years. host: you mentioned the battle over the food safety bill and that your organization is pleased that smaller firms were exempted from regulation without additional inspections. have there been moments and the past with the sustainable agriculture movement has been part of those discussions, or is this something you where groups like yours have a seat at the table? guest: we have been around for decades, but the movement is definitely building. we have more farmers and ranchers that a beginning production, that care about sustainable agriculture, and we have more and more consumers who care. at the constituency of members of congress -- they call members of congress and let it them

know that we want our food produced in a safe and healthy manner. host: tell us about what your group does. guest: we advocate directly on capitol hill and through the usda, but we also agree grassroots all across the country, grass top and grass roots, and we are trying to move agriculture in a more sustainable direction by supporting programs that help rural communities and farmers and ranchers and consumers. for example, during the child nutrition office act reauthorization, we were able to get a program that would allow local farmers and ranchers to provide fresh products like food and vegetables directly to local schools. it also contains an educational component so that children can go out to the farm and learn about how fruits and vegetables are raised.

children can do their own farming and understand agriculture. host: david is calling us from wisconsin on our farmers' line. caller: i would like to talk about bgh, the drug state should into cows -- drug they shoot into cows to make them grow faster and why they need to use them. i think it causes people to get real overweight. earlier maturity in girls that should not be -- i don't know how to explain that, but i don't think they are any good at all for anybody and i don't understand why the fda does not do something about getting this -- host: before you go, what kind of farming do you do? caller: dairy farming. host: do you consider yourself to be a sustainable farmers? caller: yep.

it is survival, because milk prices go way up and then they go down again and you cannot make a living added. -- cannot make a living at it. host: we are still listening to you. caller: and the big farmers are just taking over the little farmers. every time prices go down, they start buying up the land and farmers go out of business. guest: thank you, david. i think you raise a lot of great points. one is the pressure to push out small farmers and for farmers to get ever bigger. that is not a healthy direction to go. we need to make it possible for small and mid-size producers, independent family farms, to stay in business. the other point you made about the bovine growth hormone, our country has a problem of overproducing up to where milk prices are dropping, so why are

using artificial methods to increase milk production? some questions and naturally raises is if we're spending billions of dollars from the u.s. government on agriculture, why don't we support good practices like not using chemicals where possible, like avoiding the use of antibiotics, like pasteurized dairy production, grassfed, and also conservation practices. as a sustainable agriculture producer, i am sure you do things to protect the land and the natural resources. why are to be paying for those types of good practices -- why aren't we paying for those types of good practices instead of just bigger production? we are trying to keep small and midsize independent family farmers in business and flourishing. host: the phone number for farmers to call --

let's go to idaho, where sam joins us. good morning, sam. caller: good morning. susan, thank you for speaking about sustainable agriculture today. my question is, what is your position on the use of petroleum-based pesticides and herbicides, especially when you consider the impact on the land and the soil and our watersheds, and in connection with sheik oil, -- as, -- with peak oil, as we get past peke oil? guest: 1 is the petroleum-based input, and as an efficiency issue, and the second is the impact it has on the than from a pollution-based issue but we do at the national sustainable

agriculture coalition is support usda programs through the farm bill, including conservation programs, that reward farmers for being good stewards of their land and using more sustainable purchase. energy conservation, producing inputs -- reducing inputs from petroleum-based products, reducing runoff, things like that. we are trying to help on all those issues. host: the sustainable agriculture movement represents roughly 10% of total u.s. agriculture, and it is a growing number but 5% of the u.s. research budget is dedicated to sustainable agriculture research. looking at a piece that was recently in the huffington post, it was written by the senior vice president of sustainability for wal-mart. she talks about this issue, "y sustainable agriculture is important to everyone." she writes that "3% to 40% of

food is wasted as it moves from farms to tables." talk about that number of food waste, 30% to 40% ways as it moves across the country. guest: that is an efficiency issue and there are things along the food chain that dividend to be more efficient. one of the things she talks about in the article is building up the local and regional food system. when you don't have your food come from halfway around the world, you have less waste and energy -- less waste in energy. one of the things she talks about wal-mart doing is buying more from local and regional farmers in the u.s. and also wal-mart stores and other countries. we at the national sustainable our culture coalition very strongly -- national sustainable agriculture coalition strongly support building local and regional food systems. host: she talks about "increasing the amount of fresh fruit available around the world

by 10% without growers having to use any more land, water, energy or fertilizer. farming practices have unintended side effects on the environment, from greenhouse gas emissions to deforestation." is a typical for companies on the mega-scale of wal-mart to have someone employed as vice- president of sustainability? guest: many companies to do. wal-mart has put an effort to that, and that was in reaction to criticism they have received. wal-mart has been criticized for driving down prices. one of the concerns is paying farmers and ranchers a livable wage so that they don't get pushed out of his despera to the -- so they don't get pushed out of business. important. -- to the degree that wal-mart is doing that, it is important. i would like to see all

companies doing that. host: alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. i know he was talking about the fda, but the fda -- i know he was talking about the fd -- you was talking about the fda, but the fda supports some of the worst practices. they support one size fits all. when you look at what they are letting happen here, one size fits all vaccination, and the side effects, it causes autism and a lot of stuff. even right here, what i see in the state of alabama, they are blessed mining designed -- blast mining besides our water supply. it is terrible. they just don't seem to care about the people.

my grandfather -- they ran him out of business, and when they ran him out of business, the government took his supplies and to not leave the kids anything. guest: 90 for this very good points. it brings to mind -- thank you for those very good points. it brings to my mind the need for advocacy organizations. a coalition of 80 organizations around the country -- what we do is fly in a small and midsize independent farmers and ranchers to washington, d.c., and we arrange meetings with officials at the regulatory agencies and in congress, members of congress, so that they can speak directly. it is important for people like you, farmers and ranchers around the country, to have a voice. that is where abbott is the organizations can play a role so that agents -- that is where advocacy organizations can play a role.

host: susan prolman of the national sustainable agriculture collision is our guest. "washington journal" is doing a week-long series on food policy. a question on twitter. guest: 1 is competition. the obama administration is doing some work on making sure that small and mid-size producers are able to compete. you have a problem where in many sectors of agriculture, a small handful of two or three or four companies dominate the sector and make it difficult for small and independent, small and midsized independent producers, to compete. in animal agriculture. it -- in animal agriculture, if you are a small or midsize producer but there is no

competition in who would buy your product or which it slaughterhouses would be able to process your animals, you have an animal and you cannot sell it, you are completely under control of the corporations that dominate your region. that is why regulations are needed, antitrust regulations, and the usda and the u.s. department of justice played a very important role in that. host: david, a far out in oregon. good morning. -- a farmer out in oregon. good morning. caller: you talk about seed drift. the biggest threat is pollen drift, because it interacts with the other crops, organic crops are just conventional crops -- or just conventional crops.

seeds don't draft that far, but the pollen is the issue. the fellow from rhode island talked about the glory days of the sellers, and i did not hear about the slaves. we have a tendency on the part of that -- of big ag to attack, just like in our medalists -- like environmentalists, as if it is just man versus the environment. i'm also a water operator, and we have seen what has happened to the water from gross use of chemicals. i want to thank you for what you're doing and i want to thank c-span, but this issue -- it seems as if we know the answers,

but we continue -- there continue to be corporate and trust that will not permit the to to see -- corporate interests that will not permit the truth to see the light of day. thank you for what you're doing. guest: thank you, david. all good points, and it is true that there are lobbyists representing agribusiness companies in d.c., that is why having a countervailing weight by having farmers and ranchers speaking directly and getting consumers to care about these issues by speaking directly is so important. host: john, good morning. caller: what they've done with big ag is what they've done with it seats, dna profiles all the crop seeds and like that. he saved them from the previous

harvest and you -- if you'd save them from the previous harvest and try to grow crops, they get you on patent infringement. guest: that is a real problem and is incredibly unfair to farmers to have saved seeds for years. it can pushed small and mid-size producers out of business. it is a real problem. host: coming from twitter, talking about food co-ops -- he also asks how to find more about local growers and where to sell their goods. guest: there is community- supported agriculture, where you pay money up front for a local farmer and you get a share of the produce from the farm. i do that, and it is terrific,

agree wait to get -- a great way to get fruits and vegetables. also, farmers markets are terrific in a growing number of restaurants and supermarkets, they are aware of these issues and they are buying local in- season fruits. it is good to support this restaurants -- >those restaurants as well. there are resources like the farmers market coalition, a great resource. host: john joins us from santa ana, texas, and he is a farmer. caller: the allotments that are allotted to each foarm, they are set with -- like, my farm -- i have come over the years -- my dad lost all of his a lot and

down to two or something -- all of his allotments down to two or something acres, and i have neighbors that have 150% allotment on their acres. this is unfair to the farmers, the small farmers, or larger farmers -- where larger farmers are drawing 1.5 times per acre and i am drawing on, like, 100 acres of wheat and i get 2.5 acres left, all i have, as i use my complete -- unless i lose my complete wheat crop is unfair to small farmers. guest: thank you, john. farming is a risky and difficult business. there are institutional barriers

that are there to make it difficult for small and midsized independent producers to try and survive. you raised one of them. please contact usda and express your concerns may be going to continue our work as well. -- please contact usda and express your concerns. we are going to continue our work as well. guest: well, there are user fees at the fda, and it raises an interesting issue. it is a user-fee driven system, and to the corporations that pay the user fee exert undue influence, as opposed to if it is taxpayer funded? i throw that out there as a matter that is debated without taking a stance whatsoever. but what i want to see is the consumers and agriculture producers fairly represented

before these agencies. host: "foreign policy" had a piece, "attention wholefoods shoppers. or kinect farming is not arrested -- organic farming is not a recipe for saving consumers. it is the wrong recipe for helping those who need it most. the food problem is driven to much by the single issue of crisis." is sustainable agriculture and answer for the starving poor? guest: it provides lots of low- cost grains and fruits and other countries -- and foods in other

countries, including where hunger is an issue. if you provided at too low a cost, where farmers and ranchers cannot compete, you have people leaving, people on able to sustain their farms, leaving the or will communities and going into the city for factory work and that type of thing. we don't want to do that. that is not sustainable. we want to grow local and regional food system so people can feed themselves in the u.s. and other countries as well. host: next call. caller: what is your group doing to subsidize organization of over production? guest: -- of food production?

guest: we want to reward agriculture producers using good practices. we wanted to put things like not use antibiotics and animals -- to do good things like not using antibiotics in animal. another thing we want to do is to keep the organic label in meaningful label. the national organic program has done a good job of that, but i think that improvements can be made. if we spend the money that we are spending in agriculture to reward good behavior, as opposed to just subsidizing crops, for example, we can move our country in a better direction. missouri,awry -- mike on the farmers line. caller: 94 the forum. as always, you have good --

thank you for the foreign trip as always, you have good stories and topics. we are part of a wealth and neighborhood alliance, ex- representatives from missouri. they have fought off a zoning ordinance in springfield, missouri, where they were trying to zone a garden and it was one of those midnight, pass it through the council things. they stopped it. my question to you, is it a lobbyist thing where they are warning every piece of the bite? -- wanting any piece of the pie? add water rights. they keep changing the laws on

water, like pond water, giving the corps of engineers on water collection -- they have laws that keep faltering in. as for mcdonald's, we raise hogs, but because there is no middle man, we can get more money for our pig and it is less than it is at the grocery store. that is what the young lady was talking about with the costs down by the way we raise it. we get a little more than you would but it goes directly to the consumer c. guest: direct marketing is an

important piece of the puzzle in terms of how to make economic -- how to make farms economically viable. national organizations can do a lot, but the local and regional organizations are incredibly important. many of those are members of the national sustainable agriculture coalition, but there are many be on that -- beyond that. it is incredibly important to build sustainable farmers and help them stay in business. watching those issues and watching water right issues is incredibly important. it lies on citizens -- it relies on citizens and farmers like yourself. we are trying to assist you as much as we can from washington, d.c. host: a piece by a farmer from

missouri -- "the omnivore's against the-- agri-intellectuals." "the parts of farming better than most industrial are the most likely to be owned by the kind of family farmers that elicit such a positive response from the consumer. corn farmers salivate at the thought of one more biotech break through, use the vast amounts of energy to increase production, and raise large quantities of indistinguishable commodities to sell to huge corporations." guest: he is responding to omnivore'slan's "the

dilemma." we are supportive of the independent producers staying in business, but not necessarily in a bigger is better model. when -- one example of what he's talking about is that in agriculture, generation after generation they were pushed to raise animals and a completely different light and spending millions of dollars to build sheds and confinement systems. it is not a sustainable system. there is a lot of push back against the system and a lot of producers want to get out of it, but they are trapped and are in a difficult position because they have no bargaining power because of the small number, one or two, they consult on the market -- they can sell in the market and they don't get a fair price on the product. we are advocating for fairness

so that it is not a one-way street. host: is there a danger in americans romanticizing farming, seeing it as harkening back to a more hands-on moment? ook talkedllan's b a lot about sustainable agriculture and what the root is. guest: let me de-romanticize agriculture. it is very hard work and you can barely break even in it right now. that is white younger generations are not wanting into -- that is why young generations are not wanting to get into agriculture. those who are committed to farming have an outside job to support their farm.

secretary vilsack of the u.s. department of agriculture has vowed to get 100 new farmers and ranchers involved in farming could we support farmer and rancher programs and we want to make it so that new people can come in and practice sustainable methods of agriculture and make a living at it. host: florida, john and joins us. good morning. caller: i wanted to address a couple of issues. the first one is in regard to a comment made the other morning in the series but a lawyer -- i believed she was from the center for science and the public interest, and the issue of pasteurization came up, and she said it had no effect on foods, did not destroyed nutrients and such, which i think it's a lie. the other issue that your test and address -- your guest can address is the revolving door between the fda and monsanto.

guest: on the food safety act, we were quite happy that there were a lot of very good amendments placed in there. they do things like provide funding to train small and midsize independent producers to work on food safety. they emphasize-appropriate regulations so that it is not a one-size the -- they have size- up proper regulations so that it is not one-size-fits -- size- appropriate regulations so that it is not one-size-fits-all. revolving door is definitely a concern. you get people who represent big ag and understand the interests of big ag and go in only with that mind set, and don't understand the struggles of a small and midsize independent producers. that is an issue. i kn